memory_list_namespaces

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the phrase 'with entry counts' adds insight into the output scope. No side effects or limitations are mentioned, but for a listing tool this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action and result, and the second sentence adds practical usage context. There is no wasted wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what is returned (namespaces with entry counts) and when it should be invoked (before searching). This is complete for the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description correctly avoids describing parameters since none exist, and it does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all available namespaces') with the added detail of 'entry counts', making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (memory_store, memory_search, etc.) by focusing on namespace discovery rather than data manipulation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear usage context: 'Use this to discover what domains of knowledge exist before searching.' This implies the tool is a preliminary discovery step before using search, though it does not explicitly name the alternative sibling or state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.